Feel free to whine at fox being the source, go ahead and F3 "donna" on CNN.COM - hint, nothing.

Now, feel free to show me where there is a claim made that Sanders was denied a place on any ballot, or that any votes cast for him were not counted,
or that there is any indication that there was voter fraud or election fraud in any Primary or Caucus in this country last year.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may
have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between
the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the
money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

It wasn't illegal, Brazile said, "but it sure looked unethical."

Still waiting on you to show us how D.B. / DNC lawyers are wrong and how you are right.

Cite your proof so we all can read it.

There is zero proof here about any Primary or Caucus that was faked, fraudulent or otherwise compromised. You keep posting the same thing, and I've
responded three times now that this material says NOTHING about faked Primaries or Caucuses.

So I'll ask again. Do you have evidence that Sanders was kept off any ballot in the Primaries? Were votes for him sent to Clinton?

You're answering the question "Does the DNC claim to be able to favor candidates" and they did in the case that was thrown out. I have never
disputed that ... but it does not address the claim that Sanders was cheated.

Any reason you dont beleive D.B. or DNC lawyers? Or the reports of Democratic voter rolls for the primaries being tampered with? Or how Clinton
delegates were counted and during a recount Sanders delegates were omitted.

You have lost this argument. Time to accept the fact the DNC under Clinton used its members in a massive fraud in order to deceive the public in
order to win the presidency.

Now where is this evidence you have that says DNC lawyers and D.B. are wrong and liars?

I haven’t denied even once that individuals on the DNC acted unethically.

I haven’t disputed the claims of the DNC attorneys as you keep dishonestly claiming.

I have said and will keep saying that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that Bernie Sanders was kep off any ballot, that votes for him were not counted, that the
totals of delegates for Clinton from the Primaries and Caucuses was 54% and Sanders was less than that. Sanders lost. Clinton won.

I haven’t denied even once that individuals on the DNC acted unethically.

I haven’t disputed the claims of the DNC attorneys as you keep dishonestly claiming.

I have said and will keep saying that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that Bernie Sanders was kep off any ballot, that votes for him were not counted, that the
totals of delegates for Clinton from the Primaries and Caucuses was 54% and Sanders was less than that. Sanders lost. Clinton won.

That is my claim.

I will take the word of DNC lawyers and the DNC chair over yours.= - sadly that says a lot.

Still waiting for you to supply evidence DNC lawyers and D.B. are lying. Make sure your source is legal documents as the DNC info I provided come
directly from the DNC legal brief.

Clinton won because she cheated. She is a liar who has ethics that would raise eyebrows in the court of Caligula.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Ok, here's what I don't understand....if Hillary made a deal with the DNC, in August 2015, to take care of Obama's 2012 campaign debt -- then why did
Obama make a deal with the DNC, in September 2015, to help take care of his campaign debt?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Still waiting for you to show a rigged Primary.

It wont be shown as it's a hyperbolic talking point from Warren. As with all things, some people take one opinion from a relatively unimportant
figurehead and run with it as law and proof positive that there is something nefarious. There MAY be something nefarious, but it can't be proven by
anyone on here.

Oh wait, I forgot, it can be....by the fake news that everyone keeps citing LOL

I'll admit, aside from the psychosis that is politics ... I'm unsure why today is the day to dredge up more crap about Clinton.

Did I hear that Kutchner will be indicted by the Mueller investigation as well; are they all providing smoke to the White House now???

Just to make sure, you see my point about this alleged "rigging" of the Primaries, right? Is there some way I can say it differently? I feel like
I'm speaking in another language to the illiterate.

Of course, I see your point about the rigging.

I think where the rift is, is between viewing it from a completely logistical point of view (or literal point of view) versus perceived point of
view.

It appears to me that they are arguing that the perception lacking proof but assumed by even some party heads is that the essence was one of being
rigged for Hillary to win whereas you are literally posturing yourself to say that because Sanders name was on the ballot and because there is no
definitive proof that any of the votes for Bernie were instead counted for Hillary, that it wasn't rigged. In my honest opinion, I think there is even
a wide rift on the actual definition being used here with respect to "rigged"....maybe a definition of what it means is in order before trying to take
any position on it.

Yep. I agree, but some hear the aforementioned figurehead say "rigged" and they automatically assume it means the exact same as manipulated votes.

Sometimes you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to prevent your position from falling upon deaf ears. I've found that being the smartest
guy in the room isn't always the best approach; sometimes it's more effective to be an idiot.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.